Social mobility and social class in general have all been touched on in the U.K. Election thread, so I thought I'd start a thread on them. This is more or less a copy of my opening post in a similiar thread on TORC, which raised some interesting questions, and I'd like to see it discussed here.
Some questions:
1) Profession used to be a clear indicator of social class. Those who worked with their hands made up the working class, those who did varying degrees of professional work, from garage owners and schoolteachers to doctors and lawyers, made up the middle classes, and those who lived on their investments and property made up the upper classes.
Due to a combination of improving technology and outsourcing, much fewer of use work with our hands than did before. Labourers make up a small part of our workforce today – I know that no Australian federal electoral district has more than 20% of its workforce employed as labourers, and many have only a tiny fraction. As a result, has the middle class expanded, or are people who used to be considered lower middle class, like office assistants, now more accurately working class?
2) What is the connection between income and class? Many tradesmen are now making a lot of money, due in a large part to skill shortages. Per hour of work, many plumbers and electricians make comparable money to some doctors and lawyers. Are such tradesmen still working class?
3) What is the connection between education, interests, dress, speech, and class? These things used to be excellent indicators of social class, but are they still?
Traditionally, a man who drank beer over wine, followed rugby over cricket, preferred going to pubs than going to restaurants or clubs, dressed in blue singlets, jeans and boots, and spoke in a broad accent was almost certainly a worker who had no higher education and a modest income.
However, many people who make a lot of money by any standard fit this model. Many miners, for example, or the tradesmen outlined above.
Similiarly, in these days of mass education, many people with what would formerly be considered an elite education are working relatively unskilled jobs. I know people who graduated from private schools at the end of senior high school, formerly the highest education anyone had short of a law, medical, engineering or other professional degree, who now work in factories and warehouses. Some of them are very literate and speak with a middle-class accent.
4) What factors are decisive? For example, the bloke who works a blue-collar job for 40k, who has no education above high school, was raised by parents just like him, speaks with a broad accent, likes beer, darts and footy, has a dozen tattoos and dresses in flannies is undoubtedly working-class by any standard. Which among those qualities would need to change for him to be considered part of a different social class?
5) How fixed is the class system these days? On average, people still seem to stay around the circle that they were born in, even though mobility is highly possible. In Australia, you can get education up to and including a bachelors’ degree for no out-of-pocket expense – school is free and the federal government offers interest-free loans for university students. And while some people do rise (or fall) sharply, most don’t seem to. How strong is the connection between social class and upbringing? And, to ask the politically-incorrect question, how strong is the connection between social class and intelligence and self-discipline?
Social Class
-
Túrin Turambar
- Posts: 6153
- Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2005 9:37 am
- Location: Melbourne, Victoria
-
Primula Baggins
- Living in hope
- Posts: 40005
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:43 am
- Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
- Contact:
I wonder how much that's true any more. Distinctions are getting smeared out. All to the good, I think, though those who regard themselves as upper-class might disagree. Income is no longer a real indicator; profession maybe is, but what does the distinction mean in most people's actual lives any more? "Class" in the traditional sense no longer rigidly determines what level of education you can get, or what jobs are open to you, or whom you can marry, or what your children will do with their lives.
“There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
-
Túrin Turambar
- Posts: 6153
- Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2005 9:37 am
- Location: Melbourne, Victoria
The circumstances of your birth no longer dictate your occupation, level of education and who you will marry, but I’m convinced that class does exist. This is mostly from personal observation – I’ve moved in quite a few different circles over my fairly short life, and there are cultural differences tied to education, occupation and income. And while, as I said, the circumstances of your birth no longer strictly determine these things, they play a huge part.
vison wrote:But yovargas, "culture" is a product of class, is it not?yovargas wrote:1) The idea of class seems kinda obsolete to me.
2) Some of the stuff you list (tastes and interests) seem like they'd more properly fall into the realm of culture instead of class.
How so? What you like to watch, eat, wear, ect is most likely determined by what kind of people you are around. EG: Certain US southerners love wearing cowboy boots regardless of "class" (however you choose to define that). It's their culture.I wanna love somebody but I don't know how
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists
-
Túrin Turambar
- Posts: 6153
- Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2005 9:37 am
- Location: Melbourne, Victoria
Funnily enough, the suggestion that, in the U.S. regional differences were stronger than class differences was made on TORC as well.
Still, the kind of people you are around is in a large part determined by your profession and income. I’ve seen this myself in my own life, a lot – as I’ve moved from one circle to another I end up surrounded by entirely different groups of people.
In my three ‘lives’ – as a law student, as an appliances salesman, and now as a farm labourer, I’ve seen it first-hand.
As a labourer I’m most commonly associating with people who make around 30k a year. They typically have no education above High School. They or members of their families often had past histories of substance abuse, almost all of them smoke, and some often use illegal drugs. They’ve often had run-ins with the law, and are deeply mistrusting of the police, the government and authority in general. They don’t much like banks. They often come from families of blue-collar workers. They are usually apolitical, and do not closely follow the news or current events. They go drinking at each other’s houses in their spare time, or go fishing and camping in summer. They often smoke marijuana together. They tend to have children early – them, their partners or their own children have often had their first child before the age of 20. Among themselves and their families, divorce and co-habitation is far more common than marriage. They wear cheap clothes and buy cheap cars, which they keep on the road by buying spare parts at the wreckers. They often live paychque to paycheque, only one owns a house, and I suspect that they don’t have much in the way of savings. They live in Canada, but as a salesman in a blue-collar area in Australia I met many of the same people, and their background and interests tended to be very similiar.
As a salesman my co-workers (and I) made around 40-55k a year. They often had some post-secondary education, and a few had bachelors degrees or were in the process of getting one. Some were only in the business temporarily, either as students or because they were getting work experience to move into the Police Force or higher-paying jobs as Sales Reps. They often had fairly in-depth technical knowledge about the products they sold, would follow the news, both domestic and international, and we would often discuss politics and other current events. We would also talk about books. They generally liked sport, and two played in teams (one, a Canadian, in Hockey, the other Rugby). It was common for us to go to the gym. Some were still, to a degree mistrusting of police and government, but given our issues with shoplifting were not particularly sympathetic to criminals, either. Three had applied to be Police Officers themselves, one was studying Business and had done work experience in bank. They would often save up to travel, or go on domestic holidays. Many owned a house. Outside work they got together to do things like go-karting or go to the movies, or went out for dinner and/or drinks at the local suburban RSL club, where the women wore dresses and the men dark jeans and long-sleeved button-up shirts. Some of the younger set went clubbing in the city. There was a degree of friction between us and our poorer, less-educated clientele.
Most of my classmates from law school are now graduates, making 50-60k a year and working steadily up (some are probably already over 70k). They all have a bachelors degree; in law, accounting, economics or the like. We would meet for lunch or dinner at cafes or restaurants in the city, and would drink either wine or beer. We would talk in-depth about what was on the news, or sometimes about philosophy, culture or other like topics. We followed sport, but not as much as the salespeople did. It was usual to go to the gym. They tended to sympathise far more with government and authority than with the unwashed and uneducated masses, who were often viewed with subconscious distrust or contempt. Generally, their parents were tertiary-educated or wealthy businesspeople. All owned a house or aspired to do so, some already had money in investments. Hiking, clubbing, dining out and boating were common pastimes. The men would often wear suits when going out, and all could tie a necktie. The women wore evening dresses. Many of us could quote some Latin or Shakespeare. Some rarely went into the suburbs, spending almost all their time in the city or at resort towns on the Coast. Flying overseas or interstate was common.
I’ve had some contact with those below the 30k blue-collar crowd, mostly when I saw them dragged into court. They often drift from job to job and/or live on the street. And I’ve had a little contact with the plus-80k crowd as well, although not much. I imagine that you could write a similar paragraph on them as well.
Still, the kind of people you are around is in a large part determined by your profession and income. I’ve seen this myself in my own life, a lot – as I’ve moved from one circle to another I end up surrounded by entirely different groups of people.
In my three ‘lives’ – as a law student, as an appliances salesman, and now as a farm labourer, I’ve seen it first-hand.
As a labourer I’m most commonly associating with people who make around 30k a year. They typically have no education above High School. They or members of their families often had past histories of substance abuse, almost all of them smoke, and some often use illegal drugs. They’ve often had run-ins with the law, and are deeply mistrusting of the police, the government and authority in general. They don’t much like banks. They often come from families of blue-collar workers. They are usually apolitical, and do not closely follow the news or current events. They go drinking at each other’s houses in their spare time, or go fishing and camping in summer. They often smoke marijuana together. They tend to have children early – them, their partners or their own children have often had their first child before the age of 20. Among themselves and their families, divorce and co-habitation is far more common than marriage. They wear cheap clothes and buy cheap cars, which they keep on the road by buying spare parts at the wreckers. They often live paychque to paycheque, only one owns a house, and I suspect that they don’t have much in the way of savings. They live in Canada, but as a salesman in a blue-collar area in Australia I met many of the same people, and their background and interests tended to be very similiar.
As a salesman my co-workers (and I) made around 40-55k a year. They often had some post-secondary education, and a few had bachelors degrees or were in the process of getting one. Some were only in the business temporarily, either as students or because they were getting work experience to move into the Police Force or higher-paying jobs as Sales Reps. They often had fairly in-depth technical knowledge about the products they sold, would follow the news, both domestic and international, and we would often discuss politics and other current events. We would also talk about books. They generally liked sport, and two played in teams (one, a Canadian, in Hockey, the other Rugby). It was common for us to go to the gym. Some were still, to a degree mistrusting of police and government, but given our issues with shoplifting were not particularly sympathetic to criminals, either. Three had applied to be Police Officers themselves, one was studying Business and had done work experience in bank. They would often save up to travel, or go on domestic holidays. Many owned a house. Outside work they got together to do things like go-karting or go to the movies, or went out for dinner and/or drinks at the local suburban RSL club, where the women wore dresses and the men dark jeans and long-sleeved button-up shirts. Some of the younger set went clubbing in the city. There was a degree of friction between us and our poorer, less-educated clientele.
Most of my classmates from law school are now graduates, making 50-60k a year and working steadily up (some are probably already over 70k). They all have a bachelors degree; in law, accounting, economics or the like. We would meet for lunch or dinner at cafes or restaurants in the city, and would drink either wine or beer. We would talk in-depth about what was on the news, or sometimes about philosophy, culture or other like topics. We followed sport, but not as much as the salespeople did. It was usual to go to the gym. They tended to sympathise far more with government and authority than with the unwashed and uneducated masses, who were often viewed with subconscious distrust or contempt. Generally, their parents were tertiary-educated or wealthy businesspeople. All owned a house or aspired to do so, some already had money in investments. Hiking, clubbing, dining out and boating were common pastimes. The men would often wear suits when going out, and all could tie a necktie. The women wore evening dresses. Many of us could quote some Latin or Shakespeare. Some rarely went into the suburbs, spending almost all their time in the city or at resort towns on the Coast. Flying overseas or interstate was common.
I’ve had some contact with those below the 30k blue-collar crowd, mostly when I saw them dragged into court. They often drift from job to job and/or live on the street. And I’ve had a little contact with the plus-80k crowd as well, although not much. I imagine that you could write a similar paragraph on them as well.
-
Cenedril_Gildinaur
- Posts: 1076
- Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2007 7:01 pm
I wrote this on TORC, and I think I would like it stated here, with permission of the management.
Ones income class is statistical: if you make less than half the median wage, you are poor or lower income class, and if you make more than twice the median wage you are in the upper income class.
But that's only useful in determining who is wealthier than whom, and only for today. The definition of class I use, influenced by my being an economist (although I'm actually an engineer) is that of time preference. Those who, no matter how little they have, invest in tomorrow have a high time preference and are therefore upper class. Those who, no matter how much they have, live only for today, have a low time preference and are therefore lower class.
Someone who works absurd hours at low pay and live in a small dwelling in order to afford to send his / her kids to a good school so that they may have a better life than he has, that person is investing in the future and has a very high time preference. That person is, mentally, upper class.
Paris Hilton, spoiled heiress who never did a serious bit of work in her life but instead spends all her time indulging her whims, would quickly squander any fortune she receives. She has a low time preference and is, mentally, very lower class.
While being mentally upper class won't automatically equate to higher income levels, it does (barring the unexpected) lead to higher future income levels.
That has been bugging me this whole thread, and I genuinely believe that social class and income class are two different things because of it.jadeval wrote:One problem here is that LM wants to know if class is more than money. But in his initial post he cited vison, who claimed that your source of money matters. Well, there you go... "power" and/or type of employment is also a component.... something to do with freedom and choice.
Ones income class is statistical: if you make less than half the median wage, you are poor or lower income class, and if you make more than twice the median wage you are in the upper income class.
But that's only useful in determining who is wealthier than whom, and only for today. The definition of class I use, influenced by my being an economist (although I'm actually an engineer) is that of time preference. Those who, no matter how little they have, invest in tomorrow have a high time preference and are therefore upper class. Those who, no matter how much they have, live only for today, have a low time preference and are therefore lower class.
Someone who works absurd hours at low pay and live in a small dwelling in order to afford to send his / her kids to a good school so that they may have a better life than he has, that person is investing in the future and has a very high time preference. That person is, mentally, upper class.
Paris Hilton, spoiled heiress who never did a serious bit of work in her life but instead spends all her time indulging her whims, would quickly squander any fortune she receives. She has a low time preference and is, mentally, very lower class.
While being mentally upper class won't automatically equate to higher income levels, it does (barring the unexpected) lead to higher future income levels.
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."
-- Samuel Adams
-- Samuel Adams
Money isn't everything. Even when I was a teenager living in rural poverty, I knew I was *better* than 95% of the kids I met in school. No hesitation. No doubts. I just knew it- even though my clothes were from charity resale shops and I was on the free lunch program. It wasn't just that I was smarter than they were (a fact borne out by my second from the top high school standing) but my decisions were better. My luck was better. I wanted out, and I got out by selling myself to the US Army for a few years.
For a while, I was in a fairly high social slot as an Army officer. When I quit and became a housewife, it was a definite downgrade in status. From Army officer to Army officer's wife was a bit of a shock. When I went through the PX (a military department store sort of thing) the way no longer opened up in front of me because I no longer wore the uniform and rank.
Now, as a civilian, I don't try to fit into any social structure, so I don't really have *class*. I have what I want out of life, and my goals are not really congruent with many people's- so they don't know how far along I am on my personal pathway of happiness and satisfaction. A few things give them a clue- yes, we own land. Yes, being packrats, we have a lot of stuff. Yes, my kids all got scholarships.
But other than that, our social status isn't really apparent to others. Our cattle look funny to the cattle farmers nearby. Our sheep look tiny compared to a neighbor's sheep. Our dog looks freakish big. And why the heck do we have a gate across our driveway?
We are a mystery to neighbors and coworkers. They don't really know what to think of us. Even my husband's judo buddies are shocked when they discover he's a computer geek by trade.
Class isn't clear cut anymore and it isn't all about money.
For a while, I was in a fairly high social slot as an Army officer. When I quit and became a housewife, it was a definite downgrade in status. From Army officer to Army officer's wife was a bit of a shock. When I went through the PX (a military department store sort of thing) the way no longer opened up in front of me because I no longer wore the uniform and rank.
Now, as a civilian, I don't try to fit into any social structure, so I don't really have *class*. I have what I want out of life, and my goals are not really congruent with many people's- so they don't know how far along I am on my personal pathway of happiness and satisfaction. A few things give them a clue- yes, we own land. Yes, being packrats, we have a lot of stuff. Yes, my kids all got scholarships.
But other than that, our social status isn't really apparent to others. Our cattle look funny to the cattle farmers nearby. Our sheep look tiny compared to a neighbor's sheep. Our dog looks freakish big. And why the heck do we have a gate across our driveway?
We are a mystery to neighbors and coworkers. They don't really know what to think of us. Even my husband's judo buddies are shocked when they discover he's a computer geek by trade.
Class isn't clear cut anymore and it isn't all about money.
Once upon a time, your class was more or less directly the family you were born into. A woman could move up by marrying up, guaranteeing that her children would have a higher class. A man found it more difficult, no matter how much money he had, he was not going to change class. But, his children could. He could marry his daughters up, he could send his sons to good schools. His grandchildren would be fairly secure in the new class. At least in England. On the continent, not so much.
America has a landed gentry, although Americans don't like to hear that. They are very discreet, which is why they are still there.
Money is the key in the US, but it still won't necessarily change you class.
How you see yourself is the important thing. I guess we should not care how others see us.
America has a landed gentry, although Americans don't like to hear that. They are very discreet, which is why they are still there.
Money is the key in the US, but it still won't necessarily change you class.
How you see yourself is the important thing. I guess we should not care how others see us.
-
Cenedril_Gildinaur
- Posts: 1076
- Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2007 7:01 pm
Do tell more about the American gentry.
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."
-- Samuel Adams
-- Samuel Adams
At my house we've been watching those absolutely classic documentaries -- 7-Up; 14-Up; 21-Up; etc -- in which British filmmakers follow a group of children through their lives. If you want an incredibly striking display of CLASS consciousness, watch the seven-year-olds in 7-Up (some "upper class," some "lower") discussing their futures...... 
In the United States we're famous for obscuring class differences even when they exist & are powerful factors.
In the United States we're famous for obscuring class differences even when they exist & are powerful factors.
The information is there, C_G, as was pointed out elsewhere. Many of the families who were granted land in the New World, as in what is now New York State, Pennsylvania, etc., are still rich and powerful and own a lot of very valuable real estate.Cenedril_Gildinaur wrote:Do tell more about the American gentry.
There is also "newer" money: the Astors, Vanderbilts, and Rockefellers. They will fit into the landed gentry class quite nicely.
There're also families that acquired land in the west and midwest via the Homestead Act and haven't sold it, though those families aren't necessarily wealthy in cash. Until they sell their land, which is about the last thing any sane person would do.
I've been told by Brits that Americans tend to be not very conscious of social class and fairly flexible about it. But it's certainly there. Like any social animal, humans sort into hierarchies. And class and culture are actually very closely interlinked: different cultures have different systems of class, or class's more extreme sibling caste, and different cultures have different rules and stereotypes and shibboleths ascribed to each class or caste. It's not just about money, or education, or what you wear and what you drink - it's the whole package and mobility between the classes depends on how easy and socially acceptable it is for someone to change their package. Some societies are more permissive than others in that regard. The US has always allowed dramatic and drastic changes to be made within one generation, though it does take luck and effort. We call it the American Dream. My husband the immigrant once said he feels obliged to chase it so I guess that means I'll have to make sure I stay employed in jobs that offer us health coverage and the like.
I've been told by Brits that Americans tend to be not very conscious of social class and fairly flexible about it. But it's certainly there. Like any social animal, humans sort into hierarchies. And class and culture are actually very closely interlinked: different cultures have different systems of class, or class's more extreme sibling caste, and different cultures have different rules and stereotypes and shibboleths ascribed to each class or caste. It's not just about money, or education, or what you wear and what you drink - it's the whole package and mobility between the classes depends on how easy and socially acceptable it is for someone to change their package. Some societies are more permissive than others in that regard. The US has always allowed dramatic and drastic changes to be made within one generation, though it does take luck and effort. We call it the American Dream. My husband the immigrant once said he feels obliged to chase it so I guess that means I'll have to make sure I stay employed in jobs that offer us health coverage and the like.
When you can do nothing what can you do?
It occurs to me that perhaps the only thing that can be meaningfully called a "class" instead of "culture" would be things that, through no choice of your own, are either available or blocked to you but not to members of different "classes". Things like a wealth alone don't quite count in my mind because even though it's not simply a choice, poor can become rich and rich can become poor by their own actions. The only U.S. example I can think of that would seem to fit is pre-civil rights era divisions that prevented certain minorities and women access to various parts of society. Nothing that I can think of today could meaningfully fit the idea of class in the same way.
I wanna love somebody but I don't know how
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists
-
Túrin Turambar
- Posts: 6153
- Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2005 9:37 am
- Location: Melbourne, Victoria
But immutability has never been part of class in the western world. Even in the Middle Ages or Victorian England, some people still rose and fell through the classes. Successful farmers or small businessmen could become gentry, the sons of modest families could rise through the military or the church even as far as the nobility, and women could marry up if they were lucky. It was rare, and not as common as it is today, but it wasn’t unknown.
-
Primula Baggins
- Living in hope
- Posts: 40005
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:43 am
- Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
- Contact:
And a snob in Jane Austen's novel Persuasion sneers at the Royal Navy because the son of a shopkeeper could rise to admiral, purchase an estate, and set up his carriage.
“There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King